Advanced Search Results

P.N. Venkatasubramania Iyer and ors. Vs. P.N. Easwara Iyer and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Hindu Law; Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930; Income-tax Act - Sections 7; Trusts Act - Sections 90; Transfer of Property Act - Sections 59; Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 - Sections 3(1)

Reported in : AIR1966Mad266

the general picture that emerges from the facts of the record. This is that of a very affluent family of Malabar, conducting Indigenous Banking as its main business or Kulachara, and possessed of very considerable income, both

Gaurikanta Barkataky Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Guwahati

Subject : FamilyDirect Taxation

it, was justified and did not err in holding that there was no existence of valid Hindu undivided family and thus pass a perverse order ?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,

Karsandas Dharamsey Vs. Gangabai

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Reported in : (1908)10BOMLR184

Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sues as a member of a joint undivided Hindu family, alleging that his great grand-father Mulji Jetha, with his son Soonderdas Mulji founded the family fortunes, acquiring great

Savitribai Widow of Dhakji Balcrustna Vs. Luximibai Widow of Ganoba An ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom573

a decree for sale and partition was made by Sir Erskine Perry on the 25th September 1852. The family property, the subject of that suit, consisting of a house in the Kalbadevi Road and a chawl, with

Kamal V.M. AllaudIn and Etc. Etc. Vs. Raja Shaikh and Etc. Etc.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Family Court's Act, 1984 - Sections 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20 and 28; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 2(4) and 9; Maharashtra Family Rules, 1987 - Rule 35; Family Courts (Court) Rules, 1988 - Rule 50; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973; Civil Court Act; Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946; Bombay Matrimonial (Transfer of Cases), Act, 1950 - Sections 4A, 19 and 35; Indian Divorce Act, 1945; Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1869 - Sections 3, 4, 5 and 12; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 - Sections 18(2); Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 29(2); Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 - Sections 18; Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 - Sections 15; General Clauses Act, 1897;

Reported in : AIR1990Bom299

involve a common question of law, namely, whether these matters stand transferred or should be transferred to the Family Court, Bombay established the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. LXVI of 1984). The Family Court was established

Lingangouda Gurangouda Hiregaudar Vs. Sangangouda Bapugouda Hiregaudar

Court : Mumbai

Subject : PropertyFamily

Reported in : AIR1933Bom386; (1933)35BOMLR779; 145Ind.Cas.780

dismissing the plaintiff's suit for partition and possession of a half share in property alleged to be joint family property of plaintiff and defendants.2. The relationship of the parties was a matter of contest in the trial

Laxmanrao Madhavrao Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961 - Sections 2(11), 2(11A), 2(20), 3, 3(3), 4(1), 5, 6, 12 and 18; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 312 and 315; Transfer of Property Act; Constitution of India - Article 14

Reported in : AIR1979Bom276; 1979MhLJ357

Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, as amended up to date, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The family unit of which the petitioner is a member, is declared to be a surplus holder to the extent

Shankarrao Sitaramji Satpute and ors. Vs. Annapurnabai and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Hindu Law; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 28 - Schedule - Article 47; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 145; Mitakshara Law; Waste Land Rules, 1865

Reported in : AIR1961Bom266; ILR1961Bom68

fagainst fifteen persons for partition and separate possession of certain properly alleged by him to be the joint family property of his adoptive father Sitaram and of Gopala, the adoptive father of the Defendant No. 4 Sheshrao.

The Advocate General Vs. Jimbabai

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Reported in : (1915)17BOMLR799

be brought at once into contact with the legal notions peculiar to the law of the joint Hindu family. I think it will be convenient to incorporate the whole of my judgment in the case of Jan

Bai Kesarba Vs. Shivsangji Bhimsangji Thakor

Court : Mumbai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Reported in : AIR1932Bom654; (1932)34BOMLR1332

it is contended that the adopted son must be considered never to have been born in his natural family, that is, he is to be regarded as born in his adoptive family, and therefore, if it be